President Of France Sues Citizen Over Billboard Comparing Macron To Hitler

from the is-this-really-your-first-time,-Emmanuel? dept

Some countries still have laws that forbid insulting political leaders. But you kind of assume enforcement of these laws will be left to the Erdogans and Dutertes of the world.

Apparently not. In France, where free speech protections are mostly known for their exceptions, President Emmanuel Macron has apparently been so insulted that it's resulted in the government taking legal action against a citizen armed with nothing more than an overused comparison and a handful of billboards. (h/t Sarah McLaughlin)

French President Emmanuel Macron is suing a billboard owner who depicted him as Adolf Hitler to protest COVID-19 restrictions.

Michel-Ange Flori, who owns about 400 billboards in the southern département of the Var, wrote on Twitter on Wednesday: "I have just learnt that I will be heard at the Toulon police station tomorrow following a complaint by the president of the Republic."

"So in Macronia you can make fun of the prophet's ass, that's satire, but to make the president look like a dictator is blasphemy," he added.

The offending poster portrays Macron in the uniform of Nazi leader Hitler, with a small moustache, a lock on his forehead and the acronym of the presidential movement LREM turned into a swastika. A message reads: "Obey, get vaccinated."

Insulting the president is no longer a criminal offense in France. That law was amended in 2013 after the European Court of Human Rights condemned the law in a ruling. But the president can still take action against alleged defamation, like any regular citizen. But, unlike regular citizens, the president's complaints are handled by government prosecutors and apparently involve local law enforcement.

To be in power is to invite criticism. The correct response is to take it, not prosecute it. But the French government held onto its criminalization of insulting political leaders for more than a century and only amended it after it was forced to by a court decision.

But this was perhaps to be expected from the French government. After all, it could barely be bothered to do anything more than indulge in a photo op in the wake of the murders of contributors to satirical publication Charlie Hebdo by Islamic extremists. And it followed up this blatant and literal attack on free speech by arresting a local comedian for his anti-Semitic statements.

The explanation by the government's legal team doesn't make anything better. It simply says Macron was offended and wanted to sue.

Jean Ennochi, a lawyer for Macron, said the legal complaint was filed for Macron in a personal capacity "because of the offensive nature of the comparison of the President of the Republic with Adolf Hitler".

A representative of Macron's party said it had filed a separate complaint alleging insult and incitement of hatred.

Obviously, being compared to Hitler isn't flattering. But it's the rare political leader who makes it through their tenure in office without being compared to Hitler at some point. Obviously, there's only one Hitler and thousands of politicians who've done nothing more harmful than anger some citizens by being on the "wrong side," or supporting the "wrong" policies, or merely holding a position of power. A ham-fisted comparison doesn't "incite" hatred. It only affirms the hatred some French citizens already feel towards Macron. It definitely shouldn't result in lawsuits, law enforcement involvement, and the deployment of government prosecutors.

Filed Under: adolf hitler, billboards, emmanuel macron, france, free speech, hate speech, lawsuits, michel-ange flori, political speech

Superior Court Dumps BS Charges Brought Against New Jersey Homeowner For Her 'Fuck Biden' Signs

from the if-not-superior,-at-least-an-improvement-over-the-last-court dept

Last week, a New Jersey municipal court judge sided with the town of Roselle Park, New Jersey, and its decision to fine a homeowner for "obscene" signs she had in her yard. The signs weren't obscene in any legal sense of the word -- not even under the ordinance the town claimed she had violated. When the homeowner refused to back down, the town started finding her $250/day.

The homeowner, Patricia Dilascio, tried to fight back, challenging the citation in municipal court. Unfortunately for her, the presiding judge misread the law and completely ignored the First Amendment to back the town government and its inexplicable decision to prosecute a handful of "Fuck Biden" signs. According to the town's mayor, "there's no place for profanity by a school and school children" -- a statement that can only be made by someone who's never overhead the things said by school kids when they think no adults are listening.

The judge, however, should have been able to read the law and follow a whole bunch of precedent from the nation's top court -- precedent that says the First Amendment firmly protects political speech, even when it includes the word "fuck." In the view of this court, a balance needed to be struck between protecting free speech and sparing hypothetical parents from having to explain the f-word to their hypothetical children.

With everyone with any power being stupid about this, the ACLU stepped in to take the case. And that seems to have prompted immediate results.

The Superior Court, Law Division today vacated charges against a Roselle Park resident, represented by the ACLU-NJ, who was cited for violating the town’s obscenity ordinance after displaying signs that read “Fuck Biden” on her property.  

The Superior Court, unfortunately, did not serve up an opinion strongly protecting free speech rights or excoriating the judge who had mishandled the original charges. But it did move fast once the town dismissed the ticket and agreed not to try to collect any fines.

This likely wouldn't have happened without the ACLU stepping in to help even out the balance of power. When it was just a town beating up on a resident for political speech, the mayor, Joseph Signorello, could not have been more sure of his rightness, calling the judge's blown call a "win for decency." But with the case gaining national attention -- and not a single person who knows anything about the First Amendment willing to side with him -- the only way to slow the bleeding was to abandon ship before it became the foundation for a civil rights lawsuit the town was certain to lose.

But even after agreeing to drop the charges, the mayor seems compelled to have the last word. And it's just as moronic as his opening salvo.

The mayor, Joseph Signorello III, called it a “moral loss” for the borough.

“Those signs are offensive, and were I a neighbor, I would be offended,” said Mr. Signorello, a Democrat.

“You cannot legislate decency,” he added, “and I think that’s a sad reality.”

Ohhhh… but you thought you could! I mean, that was the point of this misuse and apparently deliberate misreading of the town's obscenity statute. And somehow your town was blessed with the assistance of a judge just as concerned about children and just as dismissive of civil liberties as you are! Sure, it's too bad you're both wrong, but you guys had a thing going for a bit. Try to enjoy your memories of the calm before the shitstorm, when everything was full of promise and possibilities.

Nice, isn't it?

Well… knock it off. Those days are over. Stop living in the past. Welcome back to America, where criticism of government officials is pretty much the poster boy for the First Amendment. There are better things to do with your town's time and money than waste it on protecting hypothetical children from the nonexistent threat of posted profanities.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, free speech, new jersey, patricia dilascio, political speech, roselle park, yard signs
Companies: aclu

Senator Steve Daines Decides To Spit On The 1st Amendment Again: Wants To Ban Moderation Of Politicians

from the politicians-aren't-a-protected-class-steve dept

I'm beginning to think that Montana Senator Steve Daines really, really doesn't like the 1st Amendment. Instead, he likes to wrap himself in a faux American flag as he pretends to be patriotic, while attempting to stamp out the rights the 1st Amendment provides to Americans. Last week, we wrote about his attempt to amend the Constitution (specifically, chipping away at the 1st Amendment), to make flag burning illegal.

This week, he decided to just spit on the 1st Amendment itself and introduce yet another unconstitutional social media moderation bill that would amend Section 230. Called the "Preserving Political Speech Online Act," the bill does a few different things, but the key one seems to be... to make politicians like himself a special protected class. Because, Senators like himself, worth over $30 million, clearly are an oppressed class.

There's some stuff about how if you take political advertisements from some candidates you have to take them from all candidates. But the really sketchy stuff is in how it modifies Section 230. It would change Section (c)(2) -- the part of Section 230 that is rarely relied upon, regarding "good faith" blocking of content -- such that the "otherwise objectionable" bit is deleted, and replaced with "threatening or promoting illegal activity." It would also remove the line that sites are protected for blocking material "whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."

Of course, this misunderstands the nature of both Section 230 (and how (c)(1) already protects most moderation) and the 1st Amendment, which already protects most content moderation editorial choices as well. But, then Daines has to take it a step further and make absolutely sure his bill is blatantly unconstitutional. Because it also adds in a prohibition on certain types of moderation. It says you can no longer moderate "political speech." Apparently Daines wants to make sure all Nazis are protected when they promote fascism. His bill would add in this bit of unconstitutional garbage:

PROHIBITION OF BAD FAITH BLOCKING AND SCREENING.—

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i), it shall not be considered good faith for a provider of an interactive computer service to block, censor, or screen material on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or political affiliation or speech

Now, race, color, religion, sex, and national origin are already protected classes. Political affiliation is not. Nor should it be. And, flat out saying that you're regulating speech here should have raised all of the 1st Amendment alarm bells possible. But it did not. Because this is not a serious attempt at serious policy making from a serious person. This is grandstand culture warrioring from a silly politician with nothing better to do than rile up an ignorant, silly base.

Amusingly, there's an exemption on that stuff for a website that is "dedicated to a specific issue, policy, belief, or viewpoint." So... if you set up a site specifically for Nazis, you can now ban people who don't support fascism. But the webhost hosting the Nazi focused site, which is open generally to the public, cannot ban the Nazi website. Is that really what Daines wants?

And, left unsaid so far, is that all of this is based on a total myth that anyone is being moderated for their political viewpoints. They are not. People are being moderated for violating policies such as by spreading mis- and disinformation, harassing others, trolling others, and other such general mayhem. No one is being moderated for supporting any standard political viewpoints. It's a myth that fools like Steve Daines embrace because to admit the truth would be to admit that their most vocal supporters are ignorant rubes and assholes.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, flag burning, free speech, political speech, politicians, protected class, section 230, steve daines

UK Politician Demands The Impossible: Social Media Companies Must Not Take Down Political Speech, But Must Block Disinformation

from the say-what-now?!? dept

UK Parliament Member Damian Collins has been pushing dangerous nonsense about social media content moderation for a while now. A couple years ago he held a theatrical hearing on fake news that was marred by the fact that Collins himself was spreading fake news. Last year, he announced incredibly dangerous ideas about "stopping fake news" on websites.

And now he's doing something even stupider. According to the Financial Times, Collins is working with Boris Johnson on forcing a "duty of impartiality" on websites, saying that they cannot moderate political content:

Downing Street is pushing for big tech companies to be subject to a “duty of impartiality” to prevent political bias as part of legislation to regulate dangers on the internet.

How the fuck would that work in practice? Not well, I imagine. And then Collins decided to make it worse. Responding to a question from Jeff Jarvis on Twitter about this "duty of impartiality," Collins uttered what might be the stupidest thing I've ever seen a politician utter regarding content moderation (and we've seen a lot of stupid things said):

He said:

In my view social media companies must not censor political speech but they have a responsibility to act against known sources of harmful disinformation wherever it comes from, including when it's from a President

Got that? The rule is that you can't takedown any political speech, but you have a duty to remove disinformation, including when it's from the President. Just take a second and marvel at the pure, unadulterated stupidity of that statement. It presumes that there's a bright line between "political speech" and "harmful disinformation." Anyone who knows anything knows that's not true at all. A ton of "political speech" is actually "harmful disinformation."

Hell, I'd argue that Collins' idea that this is easily distinguished is, in itself, "harmful disinformation." Should Twitter remove it? Or is that political speech.

Basically, what this comes down to is the same old shit. So many people think that social media companies should be forced to keep up the content they like, and forced to takedown the content they disagree with. It never occurs to them that their own personal tastes differ from others and that there's no way to write a regulation that takes into the account the bad taste of some clueless politicians.

Oh, and it gets worse. You see, MP Damian Collins has another possible solution. He's launched his own fact checking service, called "Infotagion," promising to tell people what is disinformation that must be removed, and what's okay.

In other words, he's positioning himself to be the Lord High Internet Censor of the UK.

We've discussed before the differences between content moderation and censorship, and let's be quite clear here: what Collins is proposing is not content moderation, but censorship. He's set up his own fact checking service, and seems to think that he can magically decide which content sites must all block, and which content they must allow. It's not hard to see how that kind of power will be immediately and frequently abused by petty and small minded politicians.

Filed Under: content moderation, damian collins, disinformation, duty of impartiality, fake news, free speech, political speech, uk

Rep. Cicilline Wants To Remove Section 230 Protections For Platforms That Host 'Demonstrably False' Political Ads

from the the-1st-amendment-callling dept

What is it with politicians (and other commentators) who keep confusing the 1st Amendment with Section 230? The latest is Rep. David Cicilline, who wants to remove Section 230 protections from internet platforms that host "demonstrably false" political ads:

Rep. David Cicilline is drafting legislation to take away a broad tech liability protection for online platforms that knowingly publish “demonstrably false” political ads, he says at a National Association of Broadcasters’ event.

This has been an issue a bunch of folks have been raising of late. Elizabeth Warren and Nancy Pelosi have both expressed anger that Facebook has chosen not to fact check political videos. However, as we've noted repeatedly, there are all sorts of problems with a proposal like this.

First, and perhaps biggest, is the 1st Amendment. Contrary to what many people seem to believe, many false statements are still protected under the 1st Amendment -- and while internet platforms have their own rights to take down or leave up what they want, having the government step in and create an effective mandate to take down "false" information will almost certainly violate the 1st Amendment, as it's not a content-neutral regulation. As the Supreme Court noted in United States v. Alvarez, plenty of "demonstrably false" information is still Constitutionally protected:

In light of the substantial and expansive threats to free expression posed by content-based restrictions, this Court has rejected as “startling and dangerous” a “free-floating test for First Amendment coverage . . . [based on] an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits.”... Instead, content-based restrictions on speech have been permitted, as a general matter, only when confined to the few “‘historic and traditional categories [of expression] long familiar to the bar,’” ...These categories have a historical foundation in the Court’s free speech tradition. The vast realm of free speech and thought always protected in our tradition can still thrive, and even be furthered, by adherence to those categories and rules.

Absent from those few categories where the law allows content-based regulation of speech is any general exception to the First Amendment for false statements. This comports with the common understanding that some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views in public and private conversation, expression the First Amendment seeks to guarantee.

Later in that ruling, Justice Kennedy notes:

Were the Court to hold that the interest in truthful discourse alone is sufficient to sustain a ban on speech, absent any evidence that the speech was used to gain a material advantage, it would give government a broad censorial power unprecedented in this Court’s cases or in our constitutional tradition. The mere potential for the exercise of that power casts a chill, a chill the First Amendment cannot permit if free speech, thought, and discourse are to remain a foundation of our freedom.

And thus, once again, it appears that a politician is confusing the power of the 1st Amendment, and assuming that it is coming from Section 230. This is incorrect.

The second issue with such a law is that while "demonstrably false" seems like an easy classification, it's not at all easy in practice. As we've discussed many, many times in the past, content moderation at scale is impossible to do well, and it only seems easy until you actually have to do it. Case in point: just last week there was an uproar and controversy over an edited video that the Mike Bloomberg campaign posted to social media. The video shows Bloomberg on the debate stage last week, asking if any of the other candidates on stage had started a business -- and then places clips of each of the other candidates looking around awkwardly, with an overlay of cricket sounds. The video is obviously meant to imply that this extended silence after Bloomberg asked the question is what actually happened on stage -- though it is not. The clips were obviously taken from other moments in the debate.

Is that "demonstrably false"? Well, that depends on your perspective. It's absolutely misleading. But, it could also be seen as a joke or satire or making a point. Indeed, in the link above, Twitter told reporters that the video would violate its policies as "manipulated media," but Facebook says it would not, since its policies do "not extend to content that is parody or satire, or video that has been edited solely to omit or change the order of words." And, while you may agree or disagree with either platforms' decision on this, how would Cicilline's proposal handle such an issue? If put in place, it's likely that all platforms would then seek to remove this video, out of fear of it opening up the potential for massive liability.

The courts are extremely loathe to get involved in political speech -- which, quite frequently, involves misrepresentation, false, or misleading statements by candidates about each other. Trying to put an extra burden on social media platforms by potentially removing Section 230 protections for not magically being able to determine "truth" is not only unconstitutional, but likely putting internet platforms in an impossible position.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, david cicilline, demonstrably false, intermediary liability, liability, political ads, political speech, section 230